Except for that suddenly enraged individual who catches a spouse cheating.It's already the case for the most part, since most gun-crimes are felonies and felons are prohibited from owning firearms.
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
It's already the case for the most part, since most gun-crimes are felonies and felons are prohibited from owning firearms.
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
No...they should be forever imprisoned.
On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").
Nope.Once someone serves their sentence they should have all their rights reinstated. If they can't be trusted to have their rights then they should be let out out in the first place.
Besides that the weapon used should be irrelevant to your punishment.Being killed with a gun does not make you any less or more dead than someone killed with a knife,pencil, or some other tool.
As stated, the proposition is far too open to abuse.
If I were to walk out my door carrying a loaded gun, I'd be committing a “crime”. Never mind that the Constitution explicitly affirms that I have a right to keep and bear arms; I live in a state that utterly refuses to obey the Constitution, and would treat me as a criminal for exercising this basic Constitutional right.
So, if I commit this “crime” with a gun, do I deserve to be denied this Constitutional right for the rest of my life? I suppose it's rather moot, since the state—as a matter of routine policy—already openly violates the Constitution by denying me this right in the first place.
Now, if someone uses a gun to commit murder or attempted murder, then that person should either be put to death, or else spend the rest of his life in prison without any chance of parole. No need to have any separate law to deny someone convicted of such a crime the right to keep and bear arms, since being dead or in prison, he wouldn't be able to exercise that right anyway.
The same is exactly true if he committed murder or attempted murder, without using a gun.
So really, the only circumstance under which I would acknowledge the legitimacy of permanently denying someone his Second Amendment rights is a circumstance under which the Second Amendment is irrelevant anyway.
I mean violent or terrorizing crime like using a gun to rob a liquor store or shooting someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others.
I mean violent or terrorizing crime like using a gun to rob a liquor store or shooting someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others. I don't mean forgetting to renew your carry permit or hunting out of season.
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Why should these crimes be treated different if someone used a knife or some other weapon to rob a liquor store or stabbed someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others? Armed robbery is still armed robber and assault with a weapon is still assault with a weapon.
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
It still doesn't make you any less of a victim if someone uses a knife,baseball or the threat of just physical force to rob you or someone attempts to take your life. This basically amounts to charging a drug dealer in Oklahoma with failure to get a tax stamp of Marijuana even though pot is illegal in Oklahoma. Its just a bull**** charge to use in order to slap on extra time.The big difference would be the deck is stacked rather higher for a firearm killing whomever the shooter is trying for and from a distance greater than arm length.
Anyone who has committed a violent offense should be banned form owning a gun.